Steve Cohen

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, our Nation is at an energy crossroads. Either we can further increase our addiction to fossil fuels and use advanced technologies to suck out every last drop of oil, coal, and natural gas that exists underneath the Earth's surface, no matter what the economic or environmental cost, or we can decide to break our addiction to fossil fuels by investing in clean, renewable energy sources that have the capacity to power our Nation forever. The majority's decision to cut funding for renewable energy programs and increase spending on fossil fuels makes it clear that they haven't quite gotten off their addiction to dirty energy, but this amendment offers them an opportunity do so. Their decision is shortsighted, will endanger American prosperity, and threaten our economic viability. To help rectify this situation, this amendment's offered to cut $32 million from the Fossil Energy Research and Development account and increase the Solar Energy program by $16 million, to give my friends on the other side an opportunity to let the Sun shine in and join with God's wonderful source of energy. My amendment has a net impact of zero on the budget authority and does not increase 2012 outlays. Despite overwhelming evidence that the U.S. needs to invest more in solar and spend less on fossil fuels, the majority has decided to reduce funding for solar research and development by 37 percent. This severe cut is unacceptable and especially egregious since the majority has allocated an additional $32 million to the Fossil Fuels account, a 7 percent increase. This amendment that I have offered seeks to create some parity to 2011 funding by cutting the Fossil Fuels account back to its 2011 level and increasing the Solar account by 10 percent. Solar is the future and fossil fuels aren't. If the majority wants to fulfill their commitment to create jobs and increase American energy security, then they need to start seriously investing in solar. Recent studies have demonstrated investments in solar can create three times as many jobs as funding for traditional fossil fuels. And if the government decided to invest $1 million in solar development, that investment would create at least 17 jobs. But that same million dollars in fossil fuels would create but five jobs. And jobs is what the American public is interested in. The 17 jobs created would be high-paying jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, the kind of jobs that once were the backbone of our Nation and the jobs that the American people are clamoring for, giving the middle class an opportunity to have jobs and participate in the American economy. I have witnessed the power of solar in my own community to create jobs, spur economic development, and transform the lives of everyday Americans. As a result of previous Federal solar investments, Sharp Solar, which is located in my district, is a burgeoning solar industry and operates a manufacturing facility that employs nearly 500 Memphians. Additional Federal investments in solar will create thousands of new jobs in my district and millions of new jobs across the country, some of which will be in New Jersey. Not only is solar a superior job creator, but it's also a far better long-term investment. Fossil fuel proponents may not publicly admit it, but renewable energy will power the future. So establishing dominance in this sector is critical to our national energy security and economic security. Supplies of fossil fuels are diminishing rapidly, and their nonrenewable nature makes them a short-term solution to a long-term problem. Recognizing the critical role renewable energy technologies like solar will have, nations across the world are making massive investments in clean technology so they can establish themselves as leaders and exporters of the future's energy. I recently visited Germany, and solar is everywhere. The Germans are investing and supplying many of their buildings with solar, and they are a leader, just as China is. But America's being left behind. As is demonstrated by this appropriations bill, the U.S. is not making the requisite investments in solar to compete in the emerging global marketplace. Unless the majority decides to change course and support the efforts that we've made here to make unprecedented investments in renewables, the United States will transition from importing oil from the Middle East to importing clean energy technologies from China and Europe, not what we should be aiming for. My $16 million amendment alone will not determine the course of America's energy future, because we need to be investing billions in solar energy to keep up with the Chinese, the Germans, and other countries, but this zero cost amendment will create jobs and push America a little further down the road to a clean energy economy. The amendment offers a clear signal to the American people and the world the United States is serious about ending its addiction to fossil fuels and becoming a world leader in the renewable energy sector. We shouldn't just orbit around the Sun; we should harness its energy and use it to supply energy for this planet. The Sun is there for a purpose other than just an anchor. I urge support for this important amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, while on this 4th of July most Americans were partaking in American pastimes like barbecuing and watching ball games, Montanans were immersed in a new American tradition, unfortunately, cleaning up an oil spill. In this case, Montanans were working, and are still working, feverishly to clean up a 40,000 gallon leak from ExxonMobil's Silvertip pipeline, a spill that's having a devastating impact on the residents, economy, and environment in the State of Montana. As written, this legislation opens the door for more destructive events like the Yellowstone spill. This is why I proposed a simple, zero-cost amendment that will resolve this issue and continue protecting the American people, its environment, our economy, our water system from the harmful effects of pipeline spills. The investigation into the Yellowstone spill has made it clear that the spill occurred because the pipeline was not buried deep enough below the streambed. Having only been buried 5 feet below the river, years of the Yellowstone River's powerful flow removed much of the sediment covering the pipeline to the point where the pipeline was directly exposed. Once exposed, the pipeline was weakened by the elements rapidly moving down the Yellowstone River. In order to bury a pipeline beneath a streambed, the company building the pipeline often has to rely upon and apply to the Corps of Engineers for a permit to dredge and fill. While the Corps has the authority to issue the permit, EPA has the ability to exercise oversight and ensure that the pipeline is sited safely and buried appropriately. This oversight authority is an effective, nonburdensome safety feature of the permitting process that serves as a backstop to Federal and State regulators and protects the health and safety of the American people. All this amendment does is ensure that this bill does not prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from exercising this authority. It does not create a new permitting requirement or process. Historically, the siting of pipelines has not been an issue where the Federal Government has exercised much oversight. And this amendment does not call for enhanced oversight, create a new process, or require anything more from pipeline owners or builders. Rather, it simply preserves the existing right of the Environmental Protection Agency to exercise oversight in egregious cases. Every piece of oil infrastructure, whether it's a pipeline or a drill rig, has backup safety features that are critical to ensure the safe operation of the infrastructure. Those safety backups, like the dead man switch on a drill rig, only function when the first set of safety features fail. The EPA's oversight of the Corps' dredge and fill permits for pipelines is just like the dead man's switch on an oil rig. It is only there as a backup protection in case the Corps might fail. And if the oil industry uses layer upon layer of backup safety systems, why should the Federal Government not do the same? We are the ultimate protector of the water of our people. With the demand for oil in the United States increasing, more and more pipelines are being proposed. Many of these pipelines will cross economically critical, environmentally sensitive bodies of water like the Yellowstone River. Significant pipeline spills like the million gallon Enbridge pipeline spill last year in Michigan are serious events that have real implications for real people. Just ask the citizens of Kalamazoo, Michigan, who almost a year later are recovering from that spill. In order to avoid similar tragedies in the future, the Federal Government needs to retain the existing protections built into the permitting process. This amendment does that by just maintaining EPA's existing authority to protect the American people and ensure their waters are not contaminated. I urge passage of this important safety amendment, which will ensure that our Nation's pipelines are as consistent and as safe and reliable as Old Faithful, which resides in Yellowstone Park and whose river is being threatened, and I ask for support. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COHEN. If the gentleman will yield, I thank the gentleman for accepting the amendment.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, our Nation and our world is at an economic crossroads, with the debt ceiling needing to be raised by the 2nd of August. Fortunately, I think some common sense appears to be coming from the Senate from Senator Mitch McConnell: the idea of surrendering but claiming victory, more noble than admitting defeat, and much more noble than putting this Nation and the world on an economic precipice all based upon the resistance of putting tax increases on the millionaires and billionaires in this Nation. People who have benefited and haven't hurt one iota are being told by the Republicans that they will not agree to a compromise if it causes an increase in taxes for the millionaires and billionaires, those tax breaks from the Bush years that helped cause this debt problem and caused the recession. So I praise Senator McConnell for claiming victory and surrendering in a noble way and keeping our economy. Hopefully, this project will be successful and save us from having a catastrophic Wall Street and bond market collapse.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I inadvertently cast a ``yea'' vote on rollcall No. 537, as part of the consideration of the Energy and Water Appropriations bill. I would like to change my vote on the amendment to ``nay.'' When I cast my vote, I was under the impression that this amendment was a measure solely designed to reduce the federal deficit. However, after casting my vote I learned that this deceptive policy amendment specifically zeroes out money for climate change projects within the Corps' Operations and Maintenance Program. I oppose this amendment as I believe that the Corps and the entire federal government need to work quickly to reduce carbon emissions and to adapt infrastructure so it is capable of withstanding the impacts of climate change. I also oppose the amendment because I believe that sneaking deceptive policy riders into appropriations legislation is not the proper way to create policy and govern this great nation. I have the privilege of representing Memphis, Tennessee, which was inundated this year with historic floods. There is no doubt in my mind that these floods were exacerbated by climate change which caused record snowfalls and rainfalls across the Midwest that resulted in the record flooding. As bad as these floods were, the impacts would have been magnitudes worse had it not been for the Army Corps of Engineers' tremendous work to control the flood. I strongly support the Army Corps and appreciate their efforts to safeguard the American people and economy.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, on Sunday, like millions of other Americans, I was watching the women's soccer team play in Germany. What a wonderful moment it was when they came back at the last second and grabbed victory from defeat. Abby Wambach's tremendous header, the save by Hope Solo, and the five kicks by the American women made us all proud to be Americans. The American soccer team won, and they are going to play again tomorrow, and we need to cheer for them. Abby Wambach, when asked about her kick, said it was something about being an American. We don't give up. We know we can win, and we don't give up, and we win. I would ask my Republican colleagues to remember Abby Wambach and not give up and win on the deficit, because otherwise we will be losers in the eyes of the world on our economics and our ability to finance our own debt. Go United States of America.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, while we were in recess on June 25, Memphis lost one of its great citizens, Bishop J.O. Patterson, Jr. Bishop Patterson was the grandson of the founder of the Church of God in Christ, Bishop Charles Mason, and the cousin of the revered and late Bishop G. Patterson, who was the sixth bishop of the COGIC. Bishop J.O. Patterson, Jr., was a public servant as well as a bishop and a revered citizen of Memphis. He was my friend. We served together in the Constitutional Convention of 1977. He served one term in the house, two terms in the State senate, 20 years in the city council, and was the first appointed African American mayor of the City of Memphis. He was a leader in his church and he cared about his community. He cared about jazz and he cared about his fellow man. He was low key, sincere, down to earth, and a leader whom Memphis will miss. He did much with the opportunities that he was given through his father and his family and his city in politics and in other areas. He was the jurisdictional bishop for the Tennessee headquarters, the head of the Pentecostal Temple Institutional Church of God in Christ and did much with the COGIC. I will miss him and so will the City of Memphis and all of the Members and all of the saints.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Memphis Police Officer Timothy Warren, a courageous and deeply generous man who bettered the Memphis community through his service as a police officer and through his charitable work for the homeless. Lamentably, on Sunday, July 3, Officer Warren laid down his life while responding to a rogue gunman in a Memphis hotel. Public safety is an inherent power of government and every day across our nation police officers put their lives on the line to protect our citizens. Officer Warren, like his fellow Memphis police officers, responded when the need arose, without hesitation and with great courage. His actions on July 3rd may very well have saved the lives of others. Born in 1971, Officer Warren grew up in Cleveland, Mississippi and received a bachelor's degree from Delta State University, where he also earned a spot on the Mississippi All State Football Team. Despite his successes during college, he briefly ended up homeless and was forced to sleep in abandoned houses in the dead of winter. The empathy Officer Warren developed for the homeless community would last a lifetime. After moving to Memphis, Officer Warren served as a Deputy Jailer for the Shelby County Sheriffs office from 2000 until joining the Memphis Police Department in 2003. He served as a Patrolman in the South Main district, choosing to work a night shift in order to see his 8-year-old son, James, off to school in the mornings and to watch his 4-year-old daughter, Jewel, during the day. Officer Warren and his wife, Betsy Gray, were active in the community helping to feed the homeless. While on patrol, Officer Warren would pass out bottles of cold water to the homeless sweltering in the heat and humidity of Memphis. While off duty with his family, they would take their grill to Overton Park to feed the homeless. At one point, Officer Warren considered leaving law enforcement to start a church. However his good friend and ordained minister, Jeff Gray, remembers him saying ``Well, police work is all I know. I enjoy it. It also gives me the chance to minister to people because I'm right there.'' Officer Timothy Warren was a man of exceptional courage with a big heart. His was a life too short, but today I honor him as a public servant and a hero. The city of Memphis is better because of his calling to serve and protect and because of his love for Memphis and its citizens. Officer Warren is survived by his wife Betsy, two children, James and Jewel, his father Jimmy Warren and his Sister Dondi Warren.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. COHEN. Before I yield to my colleague from California to respond, I would like to mention, and I appreciate Mr. Lewis' history, but I would suggest to you that al Qaeda could have found a base in Yemen, they could have found a base in the Sudan, they could have found a base in other places. There was nothing particularly unique about Afghanistan that allowed them to have that base there. The fact is that we went into a country to fight al Qaeda, which was all in the mountains in Pakistan, and even in the cities in Pakistan, probably with the knowledge of the Pakistani government, and we have wasted a lot of money and lives in an area where we didn't need to be because that war will continue. There are only 100 al Qaeda, give or take, left in Afghanistan, but there are al Qaeda in other spots in the Middle East, and al Qaeda's people have plotted terrorist activities from Germany and from other places in Europe. They don't need Osama bin Laden's base to have activity. There is nothing unique with Afghanistan. As far as the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union went down for goodly reasons, because of all of the money they spent in Afghanistan. True, we were there fighting them; but their attempt at gaining empire, which has been the cause of the loss of many empires, stretching too far and going beyond their supply lines, killed them. They spent money there. And they'd like us to stay there. They are being real nice to us. They're helping us with bases to bring in armaments and troops and supplies. Come on, America, spend your money. Break your government. Come like we are, broken. It was a mistake. I believe that we need to get out of Afghanistan because we are losing lives and money, and doing it for a reason that is not going to make our country any better. Mr. Lewis talked about strife in places in Afghanistan. I will tell you about strife--in the United States of America, in my city, in Detroit, in Philadelphia, in Boston, in Chicago. You go to the inner cities of America, and you will see people without hope and without opportunity. That is where infrastructure needs to be built. That is where education needs to be affirmed, not in projects in Afghanistan, but in the United States of America. And that is what the Conference of Mayors said, that we cannot afford this; while our cities go to decay and our people lose their opportunity and our middle class is destroyed, we fight a war in Afghanistan which was the war of another generation, which we should have learned from history and the Soviets' experience and what happened to them. If you don't learn from history, you are doomed to make the same mistakes. I see that happening. Admiral Mike Mullen said national debt is our biggest security threat. Admiral Mullen: National debt is our biggest security threat. He said at a breakfast just last month in a tribute to our troops that that is the biggest problem we have. And when you have a problem like that that is a security interest, you go to your biggest spot where you can save money, which is the defense budget, and this war that is draining and has cost us so much--Afghanistan and Iraq. I have some amendments coming which I am going to offer that would reduce the amount of money that we spend with the forces, and also the amount of money that we spend with the infrastructure and the development there in Afghanistan. The fact is, just like in Iraq, we put in equipment and buildings and then we leave, and they don't have the ability to maintain those buildings or maintain that equipment, and it goes to waste. We don't need to be wasting our resources, leaving them there where they will just go to waste. We need to spend those resources in America and create jobs in America, and hope and opportunity for America. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. COHEN. I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I do realize the result of this amendment probably. There is another Latin phrase besides ``nunc pro tunc,'' which is ``morituri te salutant,'' which is basically ``we who are about to die salute you.'' I understand the votes today, and I see them, but I find it hard to fathom, with the American public--and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who are indeed concerned about the deficit, not going at the place where you can really get to the deficit, which is in spending in the defense budget. That's Moby-Dick. You don't throw your harpoons at a minnow; you throw your harpoon at the whale. This is the whale. And Captain Ahab had a good point; you go out there and you see the big one, you go for it. This would reduce the funds we are giving to the Afghanistan security forces by $4 billion. It wouldn't take all of it. It would keep two- thirds--they would still have two-thirds. It would reduce it by $4 billion and return those funds to help the deficit. The $12.8 billion that is currently allocated to this fund is nearly equivalent to the entire GPD of Afghanistan. Their GPD is $14 billion to $16 billion. Let's understand this, Mr. Chairman: We are giving the Afghanistan people their entire GDP, and we're borrowing it from China and other places. This makes no sense. We need to go after the big whale. Six times the total annual revenue of the Afghan Government--which is approximately $1.5 billion--is what we're giving them. I understand these funds are to be used to provide assistance to the security forces of Afghanistan, including training and providing equipment, supplies, and services. Well, I have seen soldiers killed over there, my constituents that were killed by Afghanistan soldiers that we trained. We don't know which ones are Taliban and which ones are going to turn on us, and we're training them and giving them weapons. Roughly $6 billion of the $12.8 billion is for salaries and benefits. In light of the President's announcement of withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, we need to make reductions all around, and that includes reduction for these security forces. This country could not, should not fund the structure that the Afghanistan Government cannot fund and at a time when we need to take a look at our deficit. Now I have heard General Petraeus' name over there. I'm a fan of General Petraeus too, but he's sometimes wrong. He's sometimes wrong. And I think he was for us supporting the President in Libya. And some of the folks over there that are so supportive of General Petraeus weren't so supportive of General Petraeus then. So they understand he's not always right, and he's not right on these funds either. These troops are not going to be trained in a way that they're going to be able to sustain the forces. They're not going to use the weapons, they're not going to be able to supply them. It's going to be a waste. General Mike Mullen talked about our debt being our biggest security threat, and accordingly we need to readjust our priorities and find realistic ways to reduce our deficit. This is a way we can do it and save $4 billion--still give them $8.8 billion. It's plenty. I'd like to see it all cut, but I realize that's not realistic. But we are pulling out. We're not going to be able to train those troops to where they're going to be able to maintain the funds to pay those troops in the future. Most of it is salaries, and when we're gone they're not going to have the salaries. I've been to Afghanistan, you've been to Afghanistan. It is beyond Third World--it's Fourth World, and we're giving them the last of our dollars. If you really, really, really, really care about reducing the deficit, you've got to go for the whale, you've got to go for the defense budget. And just giving this money to Afghanistan is I think a dereliction of duty. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COHEN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, the Defense appropriations bill is one of our primary funding bills to help protect our country against threats. However, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, correctly said that our national debt is our biggest national security threat. With that said, finding dollars that can be diverted from lower priorities to apply to deficit reduction will indeed make America safer. This amendment will reduce funding for the Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund by $200 million and return those funds to help reduce the deficit. That is $200 million to help reduce the deficit. The Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund was established to provide funds for infrastructure projects, and some reports also indicate funds could be used for other purposes; but, predominantly, they are for infrastructure purposes. My amendment does not completely eliminate funding. It keeps over $200 million in the infrastructure fund, but it reduces it so we can take a serious look at how we can achieve savings to reduce the deficit in funds spent overseas that are not being used properly and effectively. With the death of Osama bin Laden, there is not a need for a large U.S. presence in Afghanistan. In fact, the killing of Osama bin Laden was the biggest deficit reduction action this country has known if we take advantage of that action and act on it to make it into a deficit reduction action. We need to rethink our goals and strategy in Afghanistan. According to the World Bank, 97 percent of Afghanistan's gross domestic product is derived from military funding and foreign assistance--97 percent. If we build a vast infrastructure in Afghanistan, they will not be able to sustain it after we leave. The American people should not have to fund that infrastructure while sitting in traffic in our own Nation, in gridlock, seeing schools in disrepair, hospitals that can't provide services, and watching our own infrastructure crumble--infrastructure that can create and does create jobs carrying goods to market and providing jobs in America. If House rules permitted, I would direct some of these funds toward building our own infrastructure. That's what we need to do. But that's not the case. The Afghan Government cannot spend all that we are giving to it, and our funding is only fueling corruption and profiteering. Mr. Poe mentioned Pakistan being third from the bottom ahead of Nigeria and another nation. Afghanistan is right there with them. They are fighting for the third to last place. Afghanistan is historically a corrupt nation, and what fosters corruption is money and the moneys that we give them; and 97 percent comes from us. It is going into the pockets of people who aren't using it to build that infrastructure to help their own people. We are fostering corruption. Afghans could build their own infrastructure for far less than we are investing. We need to pull back some of this funding to focus on our domestic priorities, but we need to be concerned about our deficit. Let's keep America safe and strong on all fronts. I urge my Republican colleagues to join with me in a bipartisan effort, stretching from Florida to Tennessee, the width of the Southeastern Conference, and Conference U.S.A., I may say as well for central Florida. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COHEN. Half of the money we give them is for salaries. When we pull out, we don't pay the salaries. Their budget is only like 15 percent of everything we give them. They can't pay the salaries. They can't borrow from China. So what's going to happen then?

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. COHEN. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, last weekend while most Americans were celebrating the Fourth of July, Montanans were, unfortunately, immersed in what has become a new American tradition: cleaning up oil spills. After Exxon's Silvertip pipeline failed and spewed 40,000 gallons of toxic oil into the Yellowstone River, Exxon quickly labeled the incident a ``freak accident''--a phrase commonly used by the oil industry after major spills. But an exhaustive history of Big Oil's spills makes it clear that these incidents are not ``freak accidents'' but evidence of Big Oil's neglect. Perhaps the most blatant, recent exhibit of empty safety promises belongs to TransCanada, who dubbed the Keystone pipeline ``the safest pipeline ever built.'' A year and 12 spills later, Keystone was shut down and deemed an ``imminent threat to life, property, and the environment.'' Before we permit the Keystone XL pipeline--another deadly TransCanada pipeline--we need to reauthorize our pipeline safety legislation because our pipelines need to be as consistent as Old Faithful.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote for the Hastings resolution and against the Rooney resolution for one person in particular--three words: Jane Ann Morgan, a high school friend of mine in Pasadena, California, who was on Pan Am Flight 103. She and 177 other Americans lost their lives 23 years ago, and we should not forget them. Qadhafi was Osama bin Laden before there was Osama bin Laden, and we cannot stop until he is out of power and the 178 Americans who died and the lives of the soldiers who were injured in the Berlin discos are remembered. I will support the resolution and vote thinking of Jane Ann Morgan today.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, in June the Global Conference on Drug Policy, a 19-member group that included former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, Ronald Reagan's Secretary of State George Schultz and Paul Volcker said that the drug war was a failure, that it needed to be readdressed with new priorities, and suggested that this country get out of the Federal marijuana possession business. It is for that reason and others that I will be joining today with Congresspeople Ron Paul, John Conyers, Barney Frank, Jared Polis and others to introduce a bill to get the Federal Government out of possession of marijuana and into interstate and international shipments of marijuana and allowing the States to decide, like they do with alcohol, how they should deal with marijuana. Better they should deal with it as a health policy and not a criminal policy and not stigmatize young people for life with marks on their record that might deny them employment and taking police officers' work away from violent crimes, where they should be better be used.